² tn Heb “because of the slaughter and because of the violence.” These two expressions form a hendiadys meaning “because of the violent slaughter.” Traditional understanding connects the first phrase “because of the slaughter” with the end of v. 9 (cf. KJV, NASB, NIV, NLT). It is preferable, however, to regard it as parallel to the reference to violence at the beginning of v. 11. Both the parallel linguistic structure of the two phrases and the metrical structure of the verse favor connecting this phrase with the beginning of v. 10 (cf. NRSV, TEV).

⁵ tn Heb “Would they not have left some gleanings?” The rhetorical question makes an emphatic assertion, which for the sake of clarity is represented by the indicative form in the translation. The implied answer to these rhetorical questions is “yes.” The fact that something would have remained after the imagined acts of theft or harvest stands in stark contrast to the totality of Edom’s destruction as predicted by Obadiah. Edom will be so decimated as a result of God’s judgment that nothing at all will be left

¹ tn The translation assumes that “their relatives” and “the ones who will burn the corpses” are in apposition. Another option is to take them as distinct individuals, in which case one could translate, “When their close relatives and the ones who will burn the corpses pick up…” The meaning of the form translated “the ones who burn the corpses” is uncertain. Another option is to translate, “the ones who prepare the corpses for burial” (cf. NASB “undertaker”; cf. also CEV). See S. M. Paul, Amos (Hermeneia), 215-16.

⁵ tn Perhaps the expression “for a pair of sandals” indicates a relatively small price or debt. Some suggest that the sandals may have been an outward token of a more substantial purchase price. Others relate the sandals to a ritual attached to the transfer of property, signifying here that the poor would be losing their inherited family lands because of debt (Ruth 4:7; cf. Deut 25:8-10). Still others emend the Hebrew form slightly to נֶעְלָם (neʿlam, “hidden thing”; from the root עָלַם, ʿalam, “to hide”) and understand this as referring to a bribe.

² tn For the MT reading לִמְשָׁל (limshol, an infinitive, “to rule”), one should probably instead read לְמָשָׁל (l^emashal, a noun, “to a byword”). While the consonantal Hebrew text permits either, the context suggests that the concern here is more a fear of abandonment by God to ongoing economic depression than a fear of the potential political subjugation of Israel (cf. v. 19). The possibility that the form in the MT is an infinitive construct of the denominative verb II מָשַׁל (mashal, “to utter a proverb”) does not seem likely because of the following preposition (Hebrew בְּ [b^e], rather than עַל [’al]).

² tn Heb “darkness and gloom.” These two terms probably form a hendiadys here. This picture recalls the imagery of the supernatural darkness in Egypt during the judgments of the exodus (Exod 10:22). These terms are also frequently used as figures (metonymy of association) for calamity and divine judgment (Isa 8:22; 59:9; Jer 23:12; Zeph 1:15). Darkness is often a figure (metonymy of association) for death, dread, distress and judgment (BDB 365 s.v. חשֶׁךְ 3).

² tn Heb “land of intense drought” or “intensely thirsty land.” The noun תַּלְאֻבוֹת (talʾuvot) occurs in the OT only here. It probably means “drought” (BDB 520 s.v. תַּלְאֻבָה). The related Arabic verb means “to be thirsty,” and the related Arabic noun means “a stony tract of land.” The plural form (singular = תַּלְאֻבָה, talʾuvah) is a plural of intensity: “a [land] of intense drought.” The term functions as an attributive genitive, modifying the construct אֶרֶץ (ʾerets, “land”). The phrase is variously rendered: “land of (+ “great” in KJV) drought” (RSV, NASB), “thirsty land” (NJPS), “thirsty desert” (CEV), “dry, desert land” (TEV), and the metonymical (effect for cause) “land of burning heat” (NIV).

⁴ tn The phrase מָצָאתִי אוֹן לִי (matsaʾti ʾon li, “I have found wealth for myself” = I have become wealthy) forms a wordplay with לֹא יִמְצְאוּ לִי עָוֹן (loʾ yimts^eʾu li ʿavon, “they will not find guilt in me”). The repetition of מָצָא לִי (matsaʾ li) is enhanced by the paronomasia between the similar sounding nouns עָוֹן (ʾavon, “guilt”) and אוֹן (ʾon, “wealth”). The wordplay emphasizes that Israel’s acquisition of wealth cannot be divorced from his guilt in dishonest business practices. Israel has difficulty in professing his innocence, that he is not guilty (עָוֹן) of dishonest acquisition of wealth (אוֹן).

² tc The MT reads וְאֶסֳּרֵם (v^eʾessorem, vav conjunction + a verb form which does not properly fit any paradigm + third person masculine plural suffix). The LXX reads παιδεῦσαι αὐτούς (paideusai autous, “to discipline them”) which reflects a Vorlage of אֲיַסְּרֵם (ʾayass^erem, Piel imperfect first person common singular + third person masculine plural suffix from יָסַר, yasar, “to discipline”; BDB 416 s.v. יָסַר 3). The textual variant was caused by orthographic confusion between ו (vav) and י (yod) and metathesis with the א (ʾalef).

² tc The MT reads the anomalous אַחֲרֶיךָ בִּנְיָמִין (ʾakharekha binyamin, “behind you, O Benjamin”), a reading followed by many English versions. The LXX reads ἐξέστη (exestē) which might reflect an alternate textual tradition of הַחֲרִדוּ בִּנְיָמִין (hakharidu binyamin, “Tremble in fear, O Benjamin”); the verb form would be a Hiphil imperative second person masculine plural from חָרַד (kharad, “to tremble, be terrified”; BDB 353 s.v. חָרַד). For discussion of this textual problem, see D. Barthélemy, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 5:236.

¹ tc The MT reads וְדָמִיתִי אִמֶּךָ (v^edamiti ’immekha, “and I will destroy your mother”), and is followed by most English versions; however, the text should probably be emended to וְדָמִית עַמֶּךָ (v^edamit ’ammekha, “and you have destroyed your own people”). The second person masculine singular form וְדָמִית (v^edamit, “and you have destroyed”) is preserved in several medieval Hebrew mss and reflected in Jerome’s Vulgate. For discussion in favor of the MT reading, see D. Barthélemy, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 5:232.

² tn Heb “to contain, endure,” from כוּל (khul). Since that sense is difficult here, most take the text to read either “to consume” or “for destruction.” GKC 186 §68.i suggests that the form represents the Hiphil of אָכַל (’akhal, “consume”). The ’alef (א) would have dropped out, as it sometimes does and might do with אָכַל in Ezek 42:5. D. I. Block (Ezekiel [NICOT], 1:693) prefers seeing כוּל as a byform of כָּלָה (kalah, “be complete”), with a meaning like “consume” in the Hiphil. The weakness of Block’s suggestion is that כָּלָה does not elsewhere exhibit a Hiphil.

¹ tn Heb “A ruin, a ruin, a ruin I will make it.” The threefold repetition of the noun “ruin” is for emphasis and draws attention to the degree of ruin that would take place. See IBHS 233 §12.5a and GKC 431-32 §133.k. The pronominal suffix (translated “it”) on the verb “make” is feminine in Hebrew. The probable antecedent is the “turban/crown” (both nouns are feminine in form) mentioned in verse 26. The point is that the king’s royal splendor would be completely devastated as judgment overtook his realm and brought his reign to a violent end.

¹ tn Heb “Or shall we rejoice, scepter of my son? It despises every tree.” The translation understands the subject of the verb “despises,” which is a feminine form in the Hebrew text, to be the sword (which is a feminine noun) mentioned just before this. Alternatively, the line may be understood as “Let us not rejoice, O tribe of my son; it despises every tree.” The same word in Hebrew may be either “rod,” “scepter,” or “tribe.” The word sometimes translated as “or” or taken as an interrogative particle may be a negative particle. See D. I. Block, Ezekiel (NICOT), 1:672, n. 79.

¹ tn Or “I challenge you.” The phrase “I am against you” may be a formula for challenging someone to combat or a duel. See D. I. Block, Ezekiel (NICOT), 1:201-2, and P. Humbert, “Die Herausforderungsformel ‘hinnenî ’êlékâ’” ZAW 45 (1933): 101-8. The Hebrew text switches to a second feminine singular form here, indicating that personified Jerusalem is addressed (see vv. 5-6a). The address to Jerusalem continues through v. 15. In vv. 16-17 the second masculine plural is used, as the people are addressed.

¹ tn Heb “their rising and their sitting.” The two terms שִׁבְתָּם וְקִימָתָם (shivtam v^eqimatam, “their sitting and their rising”) form a merism: two terms that are polar opposites are used to encompass everything in between. The idiom “from your rising to your sitting” refers to the earliest action in the morning and the latest action in the evening (e.g., Deut 6:7; Ps 139:3). The enemies mock Jerusalem from the moment they arise in the morning until the moment they sit down in the evening.

¹ tn Heb “waiting and silently.” The two main words (plus two conjunctions) וְיָחִיל וְדוּמָם (v^eyakhil v^edumam, “waiting and silently”) form a hendiadys where the first functions verbally and the second adverbially: “to wait silently.” The adverb דוּמָם (dumam, “silently”) also functions as a metonymy of association, standing for patience or rest (HALOT 217 s.v.). This metonymical nuance is captured well in less literal English versions: “wait in patience” (TEV) and “wait patiently” (CEV, NJPS). The more literal English versions do not express the metonymy as well: “quietly wait” (KJV, NKJV, ASV), “waits silently” (NASB), and “wait quietly” (RSV, NRSV, NIV).

³ tn Heb “with bitterness and hardship.” The nouns רֹאשׁ וּתְלָאָה (roʾsh ut^elaʾah, lit. “bitterness and hardship”) serve as adverbial accusatives of manner: “with bitterness and hardship.” These nouns רֹאשׁ וּתְלָאָה form a nominal hendiadys where the second retains its full nominal sense while the first functions adverbially: “bitter hardship.” The noun II רֹאשׁ (roʾsh, “bitterness”) should not be confused with the common homonymic root I רֹאשׁ (roʾsh, “head”). The noun תְּלָאָה (t^elaʾah, “hardship”) is used elsewhere in reference to the distress of Israel in Egypt (Num 20:14), in the wilderness (Exod 18:8), and in exile (Neh 9:32).

² tn Heb “he has destroyed and smashed her bars.” The two verbs אִבַּד וְשִׁבַּר (ʾibbad v^eshibbar) form a verbal hendiadys that emphasizes the forcefulness of the destruction of the locking bars on the gates. The first verb functions adverbially, and the second retains its full verbal sense: “he has smashed to pieces.” Several English versions render this expression literally and miss the rhetorical point: “he has ruined and broken” (RSV, NRSV), “he has destroyed and broken” (KJV, NASB), and “he has broken and destroyed” (NIV). The hendiadys has been correctly noted by others: “smashed to pieces” (TEV, CEV) and “smashed to bits” (NJPS).

⁸ tc The MT reads נּוּגוֹת (nugot, “are grieved”), Niphal participle feminine plural from יָגָה (yagah, “to grieve”). The LXX ἀγόμεναι (agomenai) reflects נָהוּגוֹת (nahugot, “are led away”), Qal passive participle feminine plural from נָהַג (nahag, “to lead away into exile”), also reflected in Aquila and Symmachus. The MT reading is an unusual form (see translator’s note below) and best explains the origin of the LXX, which is a more common root. It would be difficult to explain the origin of the MT reading if the LXX reflected the original. Therefore, the MT is probably the original reading.